Mamet's 'Shawl' Hangs Heavy in the Summer Heat

"The Shawl," by David Mamet At the Loeb Experimental Theatre through July 16, accompanying "The Dumb Waiter"

David Mamet divides his one act play "The Shawl" into three scenes. This structure allows Mamet to play the audience, dangling pieces of knowlege in front of certain characters, then showing the fraudulent nature of what we thought was fact. Soon no one, including the characters, know what is or what is not true. It sounds complicated, but the way he does it is by having one character, John (played tremendously by Bill Donnelly) as a crackpot psychic who is, or maybe he isn't, aware of the fraudulent nature of his powers. He is being goaded by Charles (Michael Stone) to steal the Miss A'.s (Alexis Susman) inheritance money.

The first scene opens with John talking to Miss A. about astronomy and physics and other random concepts which few people know much about so anything sounds convincing. During this time, John convinces Miss A. of her own mind while saying that she wants him to read her mind. The result is like bouncing a ball against a wall--whatever he throws into her mind, he receives back when he "reads" her mind. He spends the entirety of the first scene trying to win her trust. He tells her she has a small scar on her left knee which she doesn't remember getting. He finds out she has lost her mother, then tells her that her mother was close by when Miss A. Dreamed of meeting him. But he doesn't give her any advice. Instead, he wants to convince her that she needs him, that he can see inside of her, etc. so she will return and therefore give him more money.

Throughout this scene, Connolly seems to slide gradually into his character. His knowledge seems encyclopedic, but unfortunately, he sounds that way, too, Like most of the female characters in Mamet's plays, Miss A. is only half, if even that much, of a person. We can see this even in his naming of her without a real name but only an initial. Susman shows the skeptical, yet innocent and naive side to the character as best as is possible with such a fraction of a human being. To Mamet Miss A. exists only as a plot structure to instigate the play. What we learn about her is mere hearsay and projection from John, which we do not know whether we should believe or not.

The second scene introduces Charles as the wayward parasite of the "mystic" John. During this scene any faith we may have had in John's psychic powers disentegrates because he explains all of his tricks to Charles. We learn that psychics actually are fruads, that this innocent woman is being taken in by these heartless men.

The third and final scene leaves everyone, the characters and the audience, wondering about where to put their faith. To describe all of it would be tedious. Suffice it to say that Mamet is a master of suspense. He cleverly puts an idea into the conversation, builds faith in it then has it shot down. And then he revives it. In the end, no one knows what to believe.

This is a play about trust, both sincere and fraudulently constructed trusts. Miss A. wants to trust John, but John knowingly deceives her. The power dynamics of who is in control and who is the passive recipient of orders vacillates between all three characters.

Mamet doesn't allow anyone to be trusted, doesn't allow the audience to believe in anyone, except maybe Miss A., and then she is not enough of a person to understand who she really is.

Conolly carries this show. He shows John's self-loathing through his anger at Charles in the end. While it may be coincidental with the heat in the Ex (or was it psychic frustration?) that caused Conolly to sweat profusely when he gets angry, the effect is wonderful. He is convincing both as the mystic and as the cheating shyster. At moments he seems to truly be feeling for Miss A. and then will turn and show his deceptiveness. And ultimately, Conolly is able to carry the bizarre ending, maintaining the fortitude to lie to Miss A. and the audience.

Unfortunately, the staging, only allowing us to see the actors' silouhettes, does not show us the full extent of, say, Susman's emotional portrayal.

Stone plays Charles with some discomfort. Charles is a stock character, a young vagabond whose ignorance makes him vacillate between over-confident threatening statements to pathetic acts of (sincere?) sorrow. I do not know if it is with the acting or the directing, but Charles needs to be slimier. He is a con man who is trying to get money out of John while feigning gay companionship. While Stone utilizes his Pudding past and tries to play up the effeminacy of his gay character, it is not made certain until Charles threatens to leave John if he does not swindle the money out of Miss A. I have faith, after having seen Stone in many production, that he will gradually fit into the character of Charles. I saw "The Shawl" on the second night it was open and I am sure after a week of performances, his character will be on target.

Chris Scully's directing shows up most apparently in the designing and lighting of this show. The backdrop and symmetrical windows lend a mystical feel to the stage. The lighting cues aid to create this mystical, cosmic sort of aura.

This show should not be missed. Mamet's mastery of the dramatic medium is apparent and the actors are generally able to support his wonderful script writing.